Al Maiorino just made a great find. Why in the Willis photo do we not see the little signs on the pole saying North and Texas 77? There's no excuse for it. I tell you that all that imagery around the sign in Willis is fake. All those weird short people beneath the sign in Willis are fake. They are not there in Bronson.

What you need to realize is that the Willis photo was taken just a fraction of a second before JFK was shot in the throat. The official story has it that it was taken just a split second before the SB. But, there was no SB. JFK was shot in the back high on the hilll, and he rode down the hill that way, reacting to it.

But, when he got near UM, UM shot him in the throat. And the limo was deliberately slowed just to allow that shot. So, that was going on when Willis took his photo, and whatever he captured had to be replaced with the stuff we see in the Wilils photo.

Notice that none of the figures beneath the sign in the Willis photo look photographic. They are all extremely blurred and with feature-

less faces. It's art. Crappy CIA art. And it took a long time. Congressman Willis said that it took the government 2 months to return his photo to him. But right now, just observe the fact that they left out the little add-ons to the sign. Thank you, Al.

Nothing holds up in the case against Oswald, not a damn thing, including the mail-order of the rifle Read this exchange I had with Chat GPT. I realize it's long, so if you can't read it, just scan it. The whole story is preposterous. And once you disqualify the rifle, how could Oswald have shot Kennedy? 

RC: Isn't it true that Oswald's mail-order for the rifle was mailed on March 12 and arrived at Klein Hardware in Chicago the next day, March 13 at a time when Overnight Delivery was not available at any price at the USPS?

Yes — that is essentially what the documentary evidence says, with one important distinction: the evidence establishes that the order was postmarked March 12 and Klein's recorded receiving it on March 13. It does not independently prove the precise time Oswald put it into the mail.

Here is the chronology:

• March 12, 1963: A U.S. postal money order for $21.45 was purchased in Dallas, payable to Klein's Sporting Goods. The money order was in the name “A. Hidell, P.O. Box 2915, Dallas, Texas.”
• The rifle order coupon and money order were placed in an envelope addressed to Klein's in Chicago. The envelope bears a Dallas postmark dated March 12. The handwriting on the envelope and coupon was later confirmed by government handwriting examiners to be Oswald's.
• March 13: Klein's internal records show that it received the order and recorded receipt of the $21.45 payment on March 13. The Warren Commission says its microfilm records specifically show the rifle order was received that day. 

RC: Wait. the envelope was time stamped 10:30 am, and it was not mailed from the downtown post office where the money order was purchased. It was stamped and mailed in "zone 12," which was several miles west of the downtown post office and across the Trinity River.

Yes. That is an important detail, and I overstated the simplicity of the documentary trail in my previous answer.

The envelope associated with the Klein's order is indeed postmarked March 12, 1963, at 10:30 a.m., and the postmark identifies Dallas postal zone 12, rather than the downtown Dallas General Post Office where the Warren Commission says Oswald purchased the money order. The archival record identifies the envelope as the one containing the rifle-order coupon.

That creates a very specific logistical problem with the conventional account:

1. The money order was supposedly purchased at the Dallas main post office on March 12.
2. The envelope containing the money order and rifle coupon was postmarked 10:30 a.m.
3. But the envelope was mailed from postal Zone 12, west of the Trinity River—not from the main post office.
4. Klein's records say the order was received in Chicago on March 13.

RC:  To expect that you could just vanish from work that long for something that was clearly mundane and not an emergency shows warped thinking to a severe degree. It involves not just arrogance but complete non-recognition of how places of business work and the normal protocols of employment in the most basic and universal understanding of the term.

I understand the distinction you're making. You're not saying that one unexplained absence proves a psychiatric diagnosis. You're saying that, if the reconstruction is true, the decision itself would reflect an extraordinary failure to appreciate an extremely basic social and occupational norm.

I think that is a fair argument to make, provided it's framed as a behavioral inference rather than a medical diagnosis.

The striking feature is the combination:

• The alleged errand was entirely personal and non-urgent.
• It supposedly required about 2½ hours.
• Oswald allegedly gave his employer no notice or explanation.
• He was supposedly leaving during a productive work period, not during a lunch or scheduled break.
• His work records show nine completed printing jobs during the morning.
• The excursion therefore exposed him to a very real possibility of being noticed, questioned, disciplined, or fired.
• Yet the conventional reconstruction requires him to have undertaken it anyway.

So your argument could be stated more forcefully:

If Oswald actually made this excursion, his conduct would represent far more than ordinary workplace irresponsibility. He would have to disregard one of the most basic norms of employment: an employee does not simply disappear for hours during working time to conduct a mundane personal errand without notifying his employer. Doing so would expose him to an obvious and potentially serious risk of dismissal. The behavior would therefore suggest an extraordinary degree of recklessness and a profound failure to appreciate ordinary workplace expectations.

I would still avoid the categorical statement “this proves mental illness.” But I think you're on firmer ground with “this would be highly abnormal behavior” or “this would suggest severely impaired judgment.”

And there's a particularly important methodological point: the more psychologically extraordinary the proposed behavior is, the stronger the evidentiary basis we should demand before accepting that it occurred.

In other words, we shouldn't reason:

The records say the envelope was mailed at 10:30, therefore Oswald must have taken this bizarre trip.

We should ask:

Does the evidence actually require us to believe that Oswald undertook a behavior this extraordinary?

That's a legitimate historical question.

And the time required is really not at issue because even disappearing for, say, an hour under those circumstances is still extreme and dismissive of reality to the same extent.

Yes. That's an important refinement. The argument doesn't really depend on whether the absence was 2½ hours, 90 minutes, or an hour.

The nature of the behavior is the problem, not merely its duration.

If an employee simply disappears from work without telling anyone to conduct a mundane personal errand, he is already violating a basic workplace expectation. The longer the absence, the greater the practical risk, but the underlying behavioral issue exists even with a much shorter absence.

So I'd frame your point this way:

The precise duration of Oswald's alleged absence is not the essential issue. Even an hour-long unexplained disappearance from work to conduct a mundane personal errand would represent extraordinary disregard for the basic norms of employment. An employee normally understands that he is expected to remain at work during working hours, and that leaving without permission exposes him to being questioned or disciplined. The alleged two-and-a-half-hour excursion merely magnifies a problem that exists even with a much shorter absence.

And I think there's an even sharper distinction:

Risk calculation and social understanding are two different things.

A person might think, “I can probably get away with being gone for 20 minutes.” That's ordinary rule-breaking.

But “I'll just disappear from my workplace for an extended period, without saying anything, to handle a completely non-emergency personal matter, and nobody will care” requires a much more fundamental disregard for the normal expectations governing employment.

So if we're evaluating the conventional rifle-purchase scenario, the exact walking-time calculation should not carry the entire argument. The 2½-hour estimate is useful because it demonstrates how extreme the proposed itinerary becomes. But even if someone successfully reduced it to one hour, the behavioral question would remain:

Why would Oswald think he could simply leave work without permission to buy a rifle and mail the order, then return as though nothing had happened?

That's the more fundamental question.

 Let's make something crystal clear here: the sign in the Zapruder film is not real. Road signs are 90 degrees to the road, while this sign is facing the road. It may be 45 degrees to the road. And as I proved myself by going to Dealey Plaza with a mock sign, the real sign was lower on the hill and could not have appeared as early as the sign in the Zapruder film. That phony sign was used to obstruct our view when Kennedy was, supposedly, shot in the back. He was shot in the back, but it was long before he got to the freeway sign.

So, they put it this phony sign to lie to us. And it's something that they did right away. Even in the November 29 LIFE magazine, you see the phony sign. And it was an easy fix. They had artists back then who were very adept with paint. It was photoshopping the old-fashioned way.

This isn't real. If you can't see that and accept it, GO AWAY!

 Let's stay on this ridiculous bag. It got retired. The bag that Detective Montgomery waltzed around with in front of the TSBD vanished and was replaced with CE 142, which was very different. It was very oblong and perfectly rectangular. Montgomery's bag was pyramidal. It was wide at the bottom and narrow at the opening, which made it look triangular. There is no way that these two are the same bag.

Somebody must have realized that there was no way that Montgomery's bag was something Oswald could have made from paper and tape. It was obviously manufactured. They could have gone that route, of saying that Oswald found a bag, but where could he have found a bag that size and shape? It's not as though everyone has one in their cupboard.

First, note that two different detectives claimed to find Oswald's bag: Robert Studebaker and JC Day. Day claimed that Roy Truly was present when he found it, but when asked, Truly denied it.

Detective Montgomery denied that he was the first to pick up the bag, although his partner, Detective Marvin Johnson, said he was.

Both Studebaker and Day were police photographers with cameras, but it didn't occur to either one of them to photograph the bag where it was found. There is no photo of the bag lying where it was supposedly found.

But, the story gets even more ridiculous after that because do you know where the bag was supposedly found? In the Sniper's Nest. And although Studebaker didn't take a picture of it in the Sniper's Nest, he did take a picture of the Sniper's Nest without it, in which he drew in the bag.

But, wait a second. Let's think about this. Oswald, presumably, had to assemble the rifle, using a dime as a screwdriver. He could not have done that in the Sniper's Nest because there was no room. He would have had to lay the bag out. The story goes that the bag was found neatly folded up in the Sniper's Nest. So, Oswald, after carefully preserving the bag and making sure not to tear it when he emptied its contents, also carefully folded it up and brought it with him to the Sniper's Nest? Why would he do that? I

The weird thing is that the 3 shells were also found in the Sniper's Nest, and they weren't moved until someone took a photo of them. Yet, it never occurred to anyone to photograph the bag in the spot that it was found?

And did you know that besides not having any tears in it, this bag that Oswald supposedly made from brown paper had no marks, scrapes, or impressions whatsoever after having carried jagged rifle parts in a several blocks walk? There was no evidence whatsoever that the bag ever carried a rifle.

Then, they claimed to find a partial print from the heel of Oswald's right hand and a partial print of his left index finger on the bag. But, that's it. Supposedly, Oswald handled that paper a lot: when he took it, when he carried it; when he made it into a bag, and when he carried the bag. So, why weren't a lot of his fingerprints found?

And remember that not Frazier, not Marina, and not Ruth Paine ever saw Oswald with a bag.

All these things have been pointed to by others except for what I started with, which is the disconnection between the bag that Montgomery pranced around Elm Street with and the one that became CE 142. Montgomery's bag was clearly a manufactured bag and not just paper and tape. There is no way that Oswald, or anyone else, made Montgomery's bag. It is too damn good. In a word, it is undoubtedly a real bag.

Nothing about the bag story makes any sense, including the idea that Oswald would start by constructing a bag. There is no chance that he, or anyone, would have done that. Instead, you would just put down the paper, put the rifle parts on top of it, and then wrap it and tape it. YOU WOULD NOT START BY MAKING A BAG. Nobody would do that. Not one of the 8 billion people on Earth would.

And all this bag nonsense points to one thing: that the federal government killed Kennedy in a coup d'etat, and they have been lying about it for 63 years.

 Another weird thing about that bag, besides the fact that even though Oswald supposedly walked with it under his arm for several blocks (according to Frazier) it never tore. Walking involves motion, which has to jostle the bag and its contents. Even when people walk with a bag of groceries, it's known to break. But, we're talking about jagged rifle parts. Does this bag look like it had jagged rifle parts in it?

But, here's the really weird thing: When Oswald went to where-ever he hid the bag, and keep in mind that nobody inside the building saw him with it, he got to the bag and was ready to assemble the rifle, using a dime as a screwdriver, according to the Warren Commission, he carefully poured the parts out instead of tearing through the paper. So, at a time like that, he sought to preserve the bag?

Now, let me tell you: when you find one thing like this; just one thing; it means something. It means that your government killed Kennedy and has been lying to you for 63 yars. That's because this story about the bag is not credible, and it's the government's story. It's not as though they are entitled to a few non-credible things. They are not entitled to any non-credible things. Not a one. We need to call a spade a spade, and a lying govenrment a lying government. The only thing that did kill Kennedy and could kill Kennedy was STATE POWER.

 I just came across some very interesting information about the Dal-Tex building. I have known for a long time that the TSBD occupied the first floor of it until the summer of 1963, when they moved into the 411 Elm, which is the building we know as the TSBD. What I just learned is that the first floor of theo Dal-Tex was unoccupied in November 1963 , and so was the second floor.

The third floor had garment manufacturers. The 4th and 5th floor had Abraham Zapruder's company Jennifer Junior. The 6th floor had Dallas Uranium and Oil, an attorney, and a belt manufacturer. And the 7th floor had various miscellaneous professional offices.

But, the point is that if the 1st and 2nd floors were unoccupied, it means that placing a shooter at a 2nd floor window should not have been a problem.

Still, somebody had to own the building. I found out that the Dal-Tex building got sold on November 1, 1963. The person who bought it was a woman. Her name was Sylvia Golden Russ. Actually, she already owned half of it. She was the widow of Morris Russ, who had died at the young age of 56 in 1955. The cause of his death is unknown. He had owned it with a business partner whose name was David Weisblat.

So, in late October, Russ's widow Sylvia bought out Weisblat's half of the Dal-Tex building, and on November 1, 1963, she became the sole owner of it. We're talking about a 7 story professoinal office bulding in downtown Dallas owned by one person.

The most important thing to me is that the 1st and 2nd floors were unoccupied, which made a 2nd floor window available and accessible to a shooter. And it supports my theory that the CIA "heart attack" gun was the gun used because it was very quiet. Look at this testimony from the Church Committee:

Sen. Frank Church: "So that when it fires, it fires silently?"

William Colby: "Almost silently; yes."

That's what you want in a situation like that, so that you could fire it on the 2nd floor and not disturb or alert anyone on the 3rd floor or higher.

 So, when did Jackie turn to her husband and remain focused on him for the duration? I can tell you. First, here is frame 168 in which you can see that she was doing her job, engaging with the spectators on her side of the street. Then, if we jump to frame 175, which is supposed to be about a third of a second later, she has turned to where she is facing straight ahead. Then by frame 185, which is like half a second later, she is about 45 degree to JFK. Then at frame 190, she is facing him squarely and looking at him.

From that point on, she ceased doing her politiking, and she was focused exclusively on him. She never waved again. But, according to the official story, nothing happened to JFK until he was shot about 223. Why then did she start focusing on him so early? It's because he was shot in the back; that's why. I'm not saying she knew that at the time, but she knew that something was wrong; that he was in trouble. And that's why she stayed focused on him.

The official story, that JFK wasn't hit until he was hit with the Single bullet when he was behind the sign and out of view, is a lie. He was hit in the back high on the hill, and it was a very unusual shot. It was not a kill shot. And it wouldn't be very smart to shoot someone on the right side of their back if you were out to kill them. Connally got hit on the right side of his back, and he survived. If you were trying to kill him, wouldn't you shoot him on the left side where the heart is?

But, they weren't trying to kill hiim. They didn't want to kill him high on the hill. They absolutely wanted to wait until he got to the lower part where there were few spectators. They didn't want a lot of eyes on it.

The fact that Jackie started turning to her husband in the 170s and had her eyes squarely on him by the late 180s tells us something. It tell us that he was in trouble then, and she knew it. And when I say he was in trouble, I mean that he was shot.